January 9, 2013

One of the unspoken goals of the American Establishment (e.g., universities and foundations) is to use Asian status-seeking to SWPLize them into white American norms before Asians take over the world, which seems like a decent idea.

Members of a new class of affluent Asian-Americans, many of whom have benefited from booms in finance and technology, are making their mark on philanthropy in the United States. They are donating large sums to groups focused on their own diasporas or their homelands, like the organization that held the fund-raiser, the Korean American Community Foundation.

And they are giving to prestigious universities, museums, concert halls and hospitals — like Yale University and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The institutions, in turn, are increasingly courting Asian-Americans, who are taking high-profile slots on their governing boards.

SungEun Han-Andersen, a Korean immigrant who runs two family foundations and is on the boards of the New York Philharmonic and Boston University, said the philanthropic impulse was for the first time becoming deeply rooted within her circle of Korean acquaintances.

“I don’t have to ask for funds twice, because they’re beginning to understand,” Ms. Han-Andersen, a former management consultant and concert pianist, said.
Pradeep Kashyap, an Indian immigrant and former senior executive at Citibank, described this shift as “the journey of becoming American.”

“They see their mainstream American peers giving and they say, ‘I’m going to do that,’ ” said Mr. Kashyap, vice-chairman of the American India Foundation, one of the largest and most successful of the new Asian philanthropies.

The growth in philanthropy by Asian-Americans parallels a surge in the Asian population in the United States. From 2000 to 2010, according to the Census Bureau, the number of people who identified themselves as partly or wholly Asian grew by nearly 46 percent, more than four times the growth rate of the overall population, making Asian-Americans the fastest growing racial group in the nation.

Lulu C. Wang, a money manager and philanthropist in New York, and her husband, Anthony Wang, established themselves in the vanguard of this new wave of Asian-American philanthropy when they donated $25 million to Wellesley College, her alma mater, in 2000.

“With this new display of philanthropy, there are many more who are looked at with great interest by these boards,” said Ms. Wang, who was born in New Delhi and is of Chinese descent, and now sits on the boards of the Metropolitan Museum, Columbia Business School and other institutions.

Another Met trustee who is Chinese-American, Oscar L. Tang, said, “There’s a group of us who all know each other and support each other in this tendency.”
Among Mr. Tang’s contributions have been major gifts to Phillips Academy Andover, including a donation of $25 million in 2008, and Skidmore College, as well as the Met.

Asian cultures have a strong tradition of philanthropy in the broadest sense, though it has usually involved donations to relatives, neighbors, churches and business associations. Many Asian immigrants have not immediately embraced the Western-style practice of giving to large philanthropic institutions, organizers said.

“The reaction is: ‘Why should we give money to a third party?’ ” said Cao K. O, executive director of the Asian American Federation, a nonprofit group in New York City established in 1989 that manages a community fund.

The American India Foundation emerged in response to an earthquake in the Indian state of Gujarat in 2001. Mr. Kashyap said the organization had sought to dispel some deeply ingrained cultural suspicion among Indians about “the credibility of institutions,” a holdover from India, where, he said, institutional transparency and accountability have historically been weak.

The foundation raised more than $7 million this fiscal year for nonprofit groups in India, much of it through six major galas, each in a different American city.

The Korean American Community Foundation grew out of a gathering of a group of influential Korean-Americans in New York in 2002. Unlike the American India Foundation, it decided to channel money back into the diaspora and help compatriots in New York.

The myth that Asians are a “model minority” had created a blind spot that obscured social problems among Korean immigrants, including poverty, homelessness, mental illness and the unmet needs of the elderly, said the foundation’s executive director, Kyung B. Yoon.

“In some ways for immigrants, the better off you become, the more disconnected you become from your community needs,” said Ms. Yoon, a former news correspondent for Fox who was born in South Korea and moved to the United States when she was 6.

“We grew up with this idea that success is the more distance you can create between yourself and the pack,” Ms. Yoon said. “But it’s really about how much of the pack you can bring along.”

At first, the group found little traction among Korean immigrants. So it focused on the so-called 1.5 generation — those, like Ms. Yoon, who had moved to the United States as children — and among those born in the United States to immigrants.

Since its founding, it has raised more than $7 million, disbursing about 50 grants to organizations.

Dien S. Yuen, a philanthropy consultant focusing on Asian-American giving, predicted that the surge in philanthropic activity among Asians was “only a beginning.”

My personal experience is that South Asians, with their traditions of giving alms, tend to be more generous than East Asians, but that is based on a very small sample size: my older son lived in a nice new dorm that, halfway through the year, was named after a South Asian donor, and my younger son enjoyed a nice new library at his high school that was named after a South Asian donor

79 comments:

Indian Guy
said...

Giving money to a place like Harvard, which has a $30 billion endowment but still continually raises tuition faster than inflation, is absurd. I hope Asian-Americans and others will donate to institutions that use the money more effectively. I think donations to online educational providers such as Coursera or Khan Academy will go further. Of course, donating to them won't help get your kid into a famous school or get on a multi-billion investment committee (which you can have your company manage), which is what much "philanthropy" is about.

Finally, why would I as an Indian-American donate to organizations that discriminate against my children because of their race? Whether schools discriminate against Asians vs. whites is arguable, but it is undeniable that they discriminate against both groups in favor of blacks and Hispanics.

Interesting that the Korean Diaspora is becoming more philanthropic. I've been told that Koreans back in the homeland, in spite of their racial homogeneity, are notoriously un-philanthropic towards each other.

From what I have seen, many white churches spend lots of money in the third world or in minority communities in the U.S. My guess is that most major philanthropic institutions do the same, as does the federal government.

Are there any groups of programs that specifically serve non-minority whites? I'd like to give to my own community.

I often read these types of comments about 'fasting growing' ethnic groups in various Western countries. The inference seems to be that this is something that is accompanied by a growth in their significance and relevance.

I wonder then what it means to be the fastest declining group? Nothing, I guess. Apart from the obvious pleasure it must give that group of being able to experience all those fast-growing groups rising up around them like so much vibrant Japanese knot weed.

Hey, Koreans! When you get yourself nice and 'deep rooted' in there, just spare a thought for the poor old compost, OK? We had to eat a lot of manure for you chaps.

Again because we let you stay here. But really it doesn't matter what you think its quite clear that the achievers in your race want nothing more than fit in with the SWPLs. If you like you can go back to your country. That is unless you are a PRC spy to which I say get back to work those commerce departments docs won't photocopy themselves.

"Interesting that the Korean Diaspora is becoming more philanthropic. I've been told that Koreans back in the homeland, in spite of their racial homogeneity, are notoriously un-philanthropic towards each other."

Koreans in the US are overwhelmingly Protestant, while back home they are equally split between Christians/Buddhists/unaligned.

Interesting that the Korean Diaspora is becoming more philanthropic. I've been told that Koreans back in the homeland, in spite of their racial homogeneity, are notoriously un-philanthropic towards each other.

It's true that Koreans are very cut-throat and lack a level of civility in confrontations, but they are philanthropic in a nationalist way.

During the 1998 Asian currency crisis, the common folk were famous for donating their personal gold jewelry to the government to assist in the recovery. If you recall, they came out of it and paid back the IMF loan is a matter of few years.

Also, while orphans aren't as readily adopted as they are in the West, Korean orphans get every material wish they desire donated to their orphanages to include iPods and Nike shoes.

Philanthropy is what? Charity for the rich and privileged? Funding museums, galleries, classical music concert halls, elite colleges, and etc. Stuff that cater to the rich and privileged. It's supporting the lifestyles of the rich, well-connected, and educated.

It's like Barry Lyndon in Kubrick's film. For him to be admitted into upper society, he must pay high price for paintings and spend lavishly to entertain guests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTX6b8fBqSQ

So, this isn't about giving to the needy but paying to the greedy to gain status and enter the upper crust.

It's about Barry Irishrogue becoming Barry LYNDON.

I'll bet when an Asian-American gives to relatives and churches, he or she is doing more good by people who really need the money. But you don't get anywhere by giving money directly to the poor and needy. To make the climb, you gotta give to the kind of fancy-pantsers who are into art and setting up elite colleges that keep out most people.

Btw, all this stuff about 'giving back' is pretty stupid. If capitalists take from society and feel guilty about it, they should just stop making money. That way, they won't be taking anything.

Of course, capitalists create jobs, opportunities, products, and etc. They do a great good for society, and they have no reason to feel guilty or sorry. Imagine the US or Japanese economy without their top 200 companies.

So, all this pressure to give is all about status. Also, it's the one trump card that the cultural and intellectual class over the capitalist class. Cultural class had meaning, and intellectual class has the 'truth'. The moneyed class feels crass and materialistic. So, by funding the culture class and intellectual class, the moneyed class gain 'meaning' and 'truth'. And cultural and intellectual class know how this game is to be played: Apply pressure on moneyed folks who don't fund them while heaping praise on those who do. So, GET WALMART and CHICK FIL A but go easy on George Soros, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Google. It's like the church establishment long ago went easy on kings and noblemen who generously gave to the church. It's really an extortion racket and bribery to gain status. And of course, Asians are major status seekers and will fall for this shit.

"Giving money to a place like Harvard, which has a $30 billion endowment but still continually raises tuition faster than inflation, is absurd. I hope Asian-Americans and others will donate to institutions that use the money more effectively."

But what do you get by funding community colleges? CC people got no power. But if you give to Harvard, boy oh boy, doors open up.

Of course the article really is anecdotal. But, it is striking that the donations are to other Asians, or to causes which by and large do not help the folks at the bottom of the ladder who need it most.

The growth in philanthropy by Asian-Americans parallels a surge in the Asian population in the United States. From 2000 to 2010, according to the Census Bureau, the number of people who identified themselves as partly or wholly Asian grew by nearly 46 percent, more than four times the growth rate of the overall population, making Asian-Americans the fastest growing racial group in the nation.

They've got some pretty good competition, however. Texas had an enormous Mexican population in 2000, but somehow Texas's Hispanic population still managed to increase by 43% from 2000 to 2010.

Asians as a group don't want to preserve the option to "go all ghetto" nor do they want to be honorary whites. They want to be seen as equal to (or better than) everyone else in terms of conspicuous achievements. In the past this has not been for the sake of white approval, but to enhance personal status in their own ethnic groups. It seems they are realizing that broad philanthropy can increase one's status far more than donating to close associates or co-ethnics.

I'm guessing a similar scenario happened as Jews, Irish, and Italians integrated. I wonder if there's some data out there clearing showing the ethnicity of philanthropic donors to academia over time.

"Interesting that the Korean Diaspora is becoming more philanthropic."

i'm not sure that's happening. it might be, but it seems to me like it's more about status seeking.

though, this guy did run for mayor of boston, and he might be an actual philanthropist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Yoon

though it gets to hard tell, when people are democrats, whether they are actual philanthropists, or just doing things to advance their career and "prove" their worth to be elected to the next higher office.

like this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Yong_Kim

actual philanthropist, or career democrat social climber? does an actual philanthropist take an appointment to president of the world bank?!

Steve said, "My personal experience is that South Asians, with their traditions of giving alms, tend to be more generous than East Asians, but that is based on a very small sample size:".

Anonymous said... "Interesting that the Korean Diaspora is becoming more philanthropic. I've been told that Koreans back in the homeland, in spite of their racial homogeneity, are notoriously un-philanthropic towards each other."

I think most Koreans and East Asians would agree with this observation. East Asians have lived in higher densities, on average, than Caucasians and far, far longer. This higher urbanization coupled with harsh cold winters have tended to make their character more thrifty, self sufficient, more willing to 'eat bitterness', and more family centered than WASPs. And far different those whose character evolved in the lower latitudes. Their character also makes them less willing to embrace wishful thinking and the idea that throwing money to the spendthrift will solve their problems.

Those interested in Korean national character would benefit from their war movies on Netflix. There the portrayal of men and women enduring fantastically harsh physical and emotional conditions is lingered over in detail.

Koreans are on an individual level autistic and even misanthropic. I've seen crowds of them just walk by a compatriot bleeding from the mouth after falling down a flight of stairs. This cruel streak has been documented since our cultures first made contact.

However, when a collective effort achieves critical mass and there's a chance of being the odd one out, the mood becomes almost festive as they join together to do whatever it is: donating gold during the IMF crisis, the much-touted street cleaning during the 2002 World Cup or spending the weekend with their coworkers handing out rice to the elderly.

This trait is particularly useful in attempts, encouraged by a very socially active government, to "globalize" Korean pop culture

This SWPL thing... I take it that its main appeal is to young urban white middle class folks ranging from fresh-out-of-college to reasonably affluent. I can't imagine it having much appeal to the the really rich. What need for status symbols when you got real money and power? It's like a gold-studded bling bling means a lot more to a have-not negro than to a have-a-lot negro. A have-a-lot negro can afford all the blings he wants, but to a have-not negro, his bling bling is a status symbol that he be cool too.

I suppose SWPL has a certain value to the rich and powerful. The rich don't wanna seem too rich. They might come across as crass and greedy. And so, they wanna go for the style of casual hipness. This way, even a billionaire urban geek can fool the minions who work for him that they are all part of the same hip crowd. Thus, SWPL-ism has a way of softening the class tensions between the really rich urbanites and middle class minion urban folks. Thus, millionaires and minionaires meld into one, at least in the realm of cultural consciousness(thereby weakening class consciousness). What's the matter with Kansas? I dunno, but what's the matter with NY? How can all those liberals who work as waiters and waitresses stand all those liberals who rake it in as financiers? They both drink starbucks and support 'gay marriage'.

Since most white urban liberal class don't really have much--and certainly far less than the millionaires and billionaires--, they need status symbols to make them feel part of the affluent urban set, and this is where the appeal of SWPL comes in. And the genius of Apple was selling stuff with swpl appeal. Steve Jobs was a billionaire and most urban liberals are not. But if you have one of those ipads or something, you feel part of the in-crowd. You don't really have much, but your status symbol makes you feel you got more. It's like if you eat sushi, it means you're 'one of them'.

There's Walmart for the slobs, but what I've noticed is the mass-marketization of high-end goods. Think of shops like Trader Joe's. It's higher end quality but still affordable to reasonably well-to-do. So, by shopping at such a swpl place, you feel richer and more connected than you really are. (High end place called 'trader joes'. How cute. Snobbery softened with image of frontier bartering.) Mass market catering to higher taste. Starbucks sort of pioneered this, I think. Every urban worker who buys a starbucks coffee isn't just buying a good cup of coffee but status.

And we see this with the franchises too. In the past, franchises meant stuff like mcdonalds and burger king. Now, they have fancy names like Panera. Taco joints used to be humble affairs. But there's Chipotle which is like a high end version of Taco Hell.

Why does anyone need to be a philanthropist to help people? The best way to help people is to be an inventor, a businessman, someone who does something for the economy. Most decent people don't want charity or handouts. They want jobs and opportunities to earn a living. Therefore, someone who builds a business and hires people is helping people. If I were to come up with a great idea, build a business in a small town, and hire 1000 people, I'm helping them, and helping them in a way that fills them with pride. They feel as workers who are earning than as charity cases who are taking handouts.

It seems to me that charity-focused philanthropy isn't really about helping people. It's about making a lot of noise and gesture that you are HELPING PEOPLE. It's really about helping your big fat ego.

Though a business actually helps more people by expanding his business and creating more jobs and products, it's seen as 'greed'. But when a businessman says, "I'm gonna give money to such and such charity", OH MY GOD, he's being soooo nice and helpful. But what good have you done by giving things to people for free?

Also, this is the US where the government provides tons of free stuff to a lot of people. Even fatso illegals get free stuff. Indeed, we are all taxed and forced to pay for free stuff for all the fat lazy bums out there. Just look at the reality tv show MY BABY MAMAM or some shit.

"Their character also makes them less willing to embrace wishful thinking and the idea that throwing money to the spendthrift will solve their problems."

Isn't paying taxes 'forced charity'? I believe both Japan and South Korea has socialized medicine. Also, haven't companies like Sony, Toyota, Samsung, and etc done more for Japan and Korea than 'do-gooders'?

I can understand people with means helping out people in desperate straits, but most people should be expected to work up the social ladder through work and struggle, which is what generations of Americans did on farms and factories.

When Asia was really really backward and poor, I can understand why Christian missionaries--mostly Americans--wanted to build universities, hospitals, and etc there. But it seems to me that Asians finally figured out that the real way to build their nations is through enterprise and opportunities.

The generosity of Indian-Americans seems to have a direct relationship to their tenure in this country. Fresh off the boat types tend to be really stingy. Those who've been here at least a couple decades can be stingy too, but some can be generous. The American-born children are similar to the general population. Perhaps the 3rd generation will embrace the whole WASP nobless oblige ideal. I, for one, don't have a problem with this.

Yes, East Asians seem to be socially autistic. Misanthropic might be a little strong. The flip side is that they're highly collectivist, so they can be generous when the general cultural mileu around them is strongly generous.

Indians tend to be more people-oriented and, as someone said, are probably more outwardly narcissistic and status seeking. Asians tend to avoid the public eye, for whatever reason.

the richest man in los angeles, and no political ambitions. only trying to help people.

Obviously a brilliant man. I wonder though if he would be considered African descent by affirmative action standards. I'm not suggesting it, but he was born in Africa. How about White South Africans, are they African in college admissions?

Chinese are the ultimate social Darwinists. They believe that if you fail, it's your fault, and if your children suffer because of your lack of success, that's their bad fortune. You won't see Chinese billionaires donating to Shriner's hospital or to Oxfam any time soon. They will however be willing to put their name on a computer science lab in an Ivy League university that doesn't really need their money because that is likely to benefit children and grandchildren who might apply to that college.

Koreans are on an individual level autistic and even misanthropic. I've seen crowds of them just walk by a compatriot bleeding from the mouth after falling down a flight of stairs. This cruel streak has been documented since our cultures first made contact.

It's about extracting wealth from the non-Asian population then having the money "bounce" around in the Asian community. This is what creates wealth. Communities that make money "bounce" more often in their own community are wealthier. Jews have done this for a very long time. Notice all the organizations mentioned in this article are focused on helping people like them. White people in America instead of focusing on a pan-white identity should instead focus on their own ethnic identity. That way you can avoid the racism label that drives many away.

"Are there any groups of programs that specifically serve non-minority whites? I'd like to give to my own community."

Daughters of American Revolution, Sons of American Revolution, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Daughters of Confederate Veterans.. Not specifically for non-minorities, but given that membership, scholarships, and benefits are primarily based on proven ancestry to soldiers of those periods, they pretty much are a proxy for non-minorities.

So if there's a rise in Asian philanthropy, I'd guess it's motivated by self-interest.

I think the same could be said of non-Asian philanthropy. If they weren't motivated by self-interest and actually wanted to help, the Bill Gates, Clinton, etc. philanthropic efforts wouldn't support these Africa boondoggles that don't actually help but are and will make problems worse. They have enough money and brains that there's simply no excuse. The only explanation is that they care more about their personal status than genuinely helping Africans and others.

Asians are following a Jewish model of charity. Instead of giving to broad interests they are investing solely in people of their own group.

Anon at1/9/13 9:39 PM, what do you expect from bringing an Iron Age people in sub-Saharan Africans into the modern world? You have the long term issues they always had along with issues of modernity coming together. I think people like Bill Gates are making a sincere effort. Bill Gates already had high status before he started his charitable organization.

One of the unspoken goals of the American Establishment (e.g., universities and foundations) is to use Asian status-seeking to SWPLize them into white American norms before Asians take over the world

Who cares what their norms are if they take my country away from me? If a person doesn't have a normal feeling of wanting to protect his own people (whether they are Asian, White or Black), then that person has sociopathic tendencies.

Turning non-Whites into to little WASPs, behaviorally speaking, has nothing to do with the survival of my people.

I think people like Bill Gates are making a sincere effort. Bill Gates already had high status before he started his charitable organization.

He would lose status if he started promoting politically incorrect things that would actually help. He's smart enough to know this, and he has enough money to know that he could bear the cost of losing status. But he doesn't, because he cares more about his status than actually helping Africans.

what do you expect from bringing an Iron Age people in sub-Saharan Africans into the modern world? You have the long term issues they always had along with issues of modernity coming together.

It has nothing to do with being an "Iron Age people". The Iron Age wasn't that long ago. Non-African "Iron Age people" had different mental and behavioral traits. Gates is the richest man in the world and he won't even address the actual problems because he'll no longer be portrayed as a politically correct hero, even if he'll get closer to actually solving the problem.

I truly doubt that you have any data on the difference of charitable donations as a function of income between North and South. In fact I am sure of it. And again I'm not sure what your point is as I pointed out when the Northern WASPs started giving they had already stopped being particularly thrifty.

Finally, why would I as an Indian-American donate to organizations that discriminate against my children because of their race?

Good question. Whites somehow pull it off, but I suspect many of them feel obligated to rather than doing it from the goodness of their hearts. That model doesn't seem to me anything worth emulating. But hey, enjoying that double standard is a huge part of what "becoming American" is all about.

Who cares what their norms are if they take my country away from me? If a person doesn't have a normal feeling of wanting to protect his own people (whether they are Asian, White or Black), then that person has sociopathic tendencies.

I don't know that being a "sociopath" is required. Being a simple idiot will do the trick. Exhibit A: White people.

I'm not saying that merely to mock whites. As I see it whites' survival is the key. If whites survive, all groups have a shot to survive. If whites go down, we'll probably all go down because there will no longer be any one group with the numbers, power or desire to pull off group survival (in America).

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.